This article addresses the impact of Alleyne v. United States on statutes that restrict an offender’s eligibility for release on parole or probation. Alleyne is the latest of several Supreme Court decisions applying the rule announced in the Court’s 2000 ruling, Apprendi v. New Jersey. To apply Alleyne, courts must for the first time determine what constitutes a minimum sentence and when that minimum is mandatory. These questions have proven particularly challenging in states that authorize indeterminate sentences, when statutes that delay the timing of eligibility for release are keyed to judicial findings at sentencing. The same questions also arise, in both determinate and indeterminate sentencing jurisdictions, under statutes that limit the option of imposing either probation or a suspended sentence upon judicial fact finding. In this Article, we argue that Alleyne invalidates such statutes. We provide analyses that litigants and judges might find useful as these Alleyne challenges make their way through the courts, and offer a menu of options for state lawmakers who would prefer to amend their sentencing law proactively in order to minimize disruption of their criminal justice systems.
Alleyne on the Ground: Factfinding that Limits Eligibility for Probation or Parole Release
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Nancy J. King, Brynn E. Applebaum; Alleyne on the Ground: Factfinding that Limits Eligibility for Probation or Parole Release. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 June 2014; 26 (5): 287–297. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2014.26.5.287
Download citation file: